John/Togs Tognolini

John/Togs Tognolini
On the Sydney Harbour Bridge with 300,000 other people protesting against Israel's Genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.

A retired Teacher returning to Journalism, Documentary Making, Writing, Acting & Music.

My photo
I’ve been a political activist for over fifty years in the Union and Socialist Movement. I’m a member of NSW Socialists. I've retired as High School Teacher and returning to Journalism & Documentary Making.. My educational qualifications are; Honours Degree in Communications, University of Technology, Sydney, 1994, Diploma of Education Secondary University of Western Sydney, 2000.

Blog Archive

Popular Posts

Pageviews last month

Showing posts with label Injustice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Injustice. Show all posts

Friday, April 20, 2007

Terry Hicks speaking at a National Day of Protest


The Free David Now National Day of Protest will take place this Saturday 21 April. There will be events in Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Darwin, Adelaide, and Melbourne where Terry Hicks will be one of the main speakers.

In Sydney the protest will be at 12 noon at Sydney Town Hall; speakers include Dr Tim Anderson, Mamdouh Habib, Senator Kerry Nettle and union representative Simon Flynn.

Marlene Obeid member of Stop the War Coalition (StWC), Bring David Hicks campaign, said: „Stop the War Coalition is proud to have supported the campaign for the repatriation of David, and now to be part of the Free David Now National Day of Protest.

“David is a political prisoner; the sacrificial lamb in an immoral deal made by John Howard and George Bush.

“It is the like of them who should be behind bars, while David should be set free immediately”, Ms Obeid added.

Raul Bassi, also member of StWC, and the Justice for Hicks and Habib campaign, said: “David Hicks is not coming home; he is coming in chains to a maximum security gaol where his torture will continue for another nine months.

“Such is John Howards‚ guile that he managed a gag order for David in order to have a smooth run to the next federal elections”, Mr Bassi continued.

“But Australians are aware of John Howard’s deceit and will turn out en mass again at the National Day of Protest this Saturday 21 April.

“David, like Mamdouh Habib, deserve all our support and solidarity in their demand for justice; and with this in mind Marlene and I will be visiting David upon his return to Australia”, Mr Bassi ended.

Terry Hicks will also be speaking at a forum on the “war on terror”‚ on 19 May in Sydney and being organised by the Stop the War Coalition.

For information contact Raul Bassi on 0403 037 376 or Marlene Obeid on 0401 758 871

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Rudd must demand immediate release of Hicks and support his right to speak out-Socialist Alliance




Socialist Alliance spokesperson Raul Bassi today called on the ALP to denounce the deal forced upon David Hicks by the US military commission at Guantánamo Bay.
(Bassi is a well-known activist in the movement to free Hicks and was also the election campaign manger for Mamdouh Habib, Australia’s only other Guantánamo detainee, in his recent campaign for the New South Wales seat of Auburn.)
Bassi said: “Kevin Rudd admits hat the US military commissions are flawed. He also claims that the ALP is ‘a defender of Mr Hicks’ legal rights and his human rights’. Now is the time to prove it. The deal to which Hicks has signed up with the US kangaroo court in Guantánamo Bay has no legal or moral validity.”

“Everyone knows that what his father Terry Hicks says is true: the deal David struck with his torturers was to get out of the nightmare that is Guantánamo. The only other release would have been that taken by other prisoners—suicide.”
Bassi added: “The whole shape of the deal—from the ‘lenient’ 9-month sentence in a South Australian jail through to the gag on public comment—is designed to help save John Howard’s hide at the next poll.

“The extra nine months Hicks is to serve here have to be added to his five years in the hell of Guantánamo—he should be released immediately.”
The Alliance spokesperson stressed that even the US Secretary for Defence, Robert Gates, believes that trials held at Guantánamo “lack credibility”.
He also noted that Lex Lasry, the Law Council of Australia’s observer at Hicks’ trial, had noted that the trial “looked terrible”, with chief judge eliminating two thirds of Hicks’ defence team and then ruling, against defence objections, that he was “impartial”.

Bassi said: “The blatant coercion involved in this deal means that the ALP cannot simply treat David Hicks as one more Australian who has received a prison sentence abroad and is covered by international prisoner transfer agreements.
“Contrary to Kevin Rudd’s media statements the ALP is not duty-bound to support this kangaroo court nor the squalid settlement of Howard’s political problem cooked up between himself and George Bush.”

“The Socialist Alliance will be campaigning within the movement and alongside the Greens for the ALP to denounce this deal and really support Hicks' human rights.
“For our part we shall continue to demand the unconditional release of David Hicks and for the closure of Guantánamo. We call on all Australians who are outraged at the deal forced upon Hicks to participate in the April 21 National Day of Action in support of his rights:”
www.socialist-alliance.org

The Politics of Convenience and Liability by Shane Elson


I was listening to the radio the other day when news came on about David
Hicks' appearance at the kangaroo court in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I thought
the best journalists in the country would be discussing the unjust court
setting he was appearing in. Perhaps I set my expectations too high. Instead
of descriptions of the conditions under which he was being tried being
described it was like listening to the spring fashion show. Ninety five
percent of the bulletins were about what he was wearing, what he looked like
and how he spoke. The remaining five percent was on the fact that two of
his three defence council were kicked out of the court by the judge. This
got me thinking. What I came up with was what I want call the 'politics of
convenience and liability.'

If you cast your mind back there are hundreds of cases where someone or some
nation was at first a convenient 'friend' who, in the minds of those in
power, later became a liability. The first one to spring to my mind, given
my Judeo-Christian heritage, was Jesus.

He burst on the scene and was, at first, considered little more than a
nuisance. As time went by the leaders of his nation saw him as a lightening
rod who could deflect away some of the hassles the Romans were giving them.
However, it didn't take long for them to realise that he was a challenge to
the very power structures that kept them well fed, well paid and in the
governor's good books.

By the time he'd upset just about all the power structures around him he was
considered a liability and so, in the name of convenience, was handed over
to a kangaroo court lauded over by a weak and immoral man who was persuaded
to make an example of him. The rest of the story we will hear next week in
churches all over the land. What about contemporary examples of the politics
of convenience and liability?

Back in the nineteenth century the US had just about bought up all of Cuba.
The little island just off Florida's coast was proving rich pickings for the
cashed up US companies who enjoyed low cost labour, cheap prostitutes and
fine sunshine. It was a political arrangement that proved very convenient
for many powerful men at the time. However, a rich media magnate, William
Randolph Hurst had other plans. Keen to prove his own and his mate's
powerful reach, Hurst used his media power to invent a war.

The Spanish influence in South America was seen to be waning and so the time
seemed ripe for a fight. Hurst used his press to whip up domestic fear of a
huge, but fabricated, Spanish armada anchored just off the US coast. When
there were no facts to back up his claims, he invented them. When there was
no aggression, he made up inflammatory claims and credited them to the
Spanish. In short he created a politics of convenience to suit the aims of
imperial US power.

After the so called "liberation of Cuba" things on the tiny island began to
change. But not as the US had expected. Economic developments and imperial
demands began to backfire and within 50 years Castro came to power on the
back of various revolutionary movements. The US did not really know or
understand the revolutionary mindset and eventually Castro was ostracised
and turned into a liability as was his nation. In a climate of fear, whipped
up in a cul-de-sac of ignorance, lies and fear mongering, President Kennedy
approved the Bay of Pigs invasion and set the CIA to the task of carrying it
out. The transformation of Cuba and Castro from convenient friend to
political liability was complete and remains alive today.

Moving back into Australia's region of the world, we find another example of
spin being used to justify war and truth turning a convenience into a
liability. The Vietnam War was a direct result of domestic US political spin
used to justify the most horrific war of the last century. The French
retreat from the peninsula left a "Western" vacuum in the region and using
the guise of the "communist threat" the CIA conspired to find an incident to
justify their political and business master's desire for war. Using the
fictional "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" to justify an invasion, US President
Johnson launched a "scorched earth" war on the Vietnamese.

The US media swung behind "our boys" but it was a few brave journalists who
began to expose the lies and do the body counts. As the news got out that
the war was being lost and tens of thousands of US "boys" were dying the
convenience of the war in stocking the coffers of the military industrial
complex, became a liability. The shocking pictures of mutilated, burning
bodies, the films of wounded and dying US troops and the public backlash
they created pushed the US and it's allies to withdraw. A convenient war,
when exposed to the truth, became a political liability.

So what does this have to do with David Hicks? Well, just a few short years
ago he was being referred to by our political leaders as a "terrorist" who
had no name and was, therefore, referred to as "that man." He was branded a
traitor who should be locked up for the rest of his life. The more extreme
among us called for him to be put to death.

Yet, in the intervening five years since his arrest - captured and handed
over while retreating to a safe place by the very forces "our boys and
girls" are now fighting in Afghanistan - he was sent to the gulag we know
as Guantanamo Bay. In that five years the most powerful nation on earth and
it's sycophantic Australian minions, have not been able to find a single
crime that he has committed. Not being prepared to let that stand in their
way, they made up a crime, custom fitted it to match the spin they had
created and back dated it in order to justify the unjustifiable.

The growing public outcry over this kangaroo court meant that Hicks, once a
political convenience to justify the imaginary "war on terror", was fast
becoming a liability to the political future of the Howard government. As
the scheming, lying, corrupt pack of thieves that make up our government was
unravelling, they needed a diversion. So Hicks, once more, became a
convenient excuse to divert our attention from the Howard government as it
falls apart under the strain of its own internal bickering over the spoils
of power.

Hicks, once a convenient focus of hatred as a "traitor", who then became a
political liability as we realised his treatment was unjust, has now become
a convenient distraction from the politics of destruction rife within the
Howard government. However, it could all unravel as the unjust system plays
out its course. Having no evidence of any crimes, the US court will, in a
day or two, get Hicks to stand up and "confess" a litany of crimes he has
supposedly committed.

Whether he will remain a convenient excuse or become, once more a liability,
will be revealed in what he says and how is treated once he as said it. Like
so many before him, and it is no consolation to him or his family at
present, history will show truth and justice to be on his side and how the
politics of convenience and liability were used to destroy him.
Alternative Radio (Aust)

inquiries@araustralia.org
www.araustralia.org

Friday, January 12, 2007

Aurukun protest: inevitable until white police charged by Sam Watson


12 January 2006

“Aboriginal people across Queensland and across Australia have lost all
confidence in the capacity of the criminal justice system to address our
needs”, Sam Watson, Socialist Alliance spokesperson on Indigenous issues
said today.

Watson said: “Until those police officers who have been found to commit
criminal actions against Aboriginal people are dealt with by due process
more Aurukuns are inevitable.”

The Socialist Alliance spokesperson was commenting on the latest
explosion of Aboriginal rage, at the Cape York community of Aurukun. The
flare-up was caused by rumours that an Aboriginal man had been assaulted
while in police custody.

Watson stressed: “Any police officer involved in that unlawful assault
needs to be identified and suspended, and charges laid. We have this
extreme situation where a police officer actually fired a privately
owned rifle at the crowd of people who were confronting the police
station.”

The Aboriginal leader said that Aurukun Aboriginal elders were now
working with the community to stabilise matters and to ensure that there
are no dangers of any other flare-ups.

“On the other hand”, Watson added, “what is now starting to emerge is
the fact that there is substantial forensic material available that
supports the Aboriginal man’s claims that he was grievously assaulted
whilst in custody. There are senior Aboriginal people coming forward now
with material clearly supporting the man’s allegations.”

Watson demanded a thorough independent inquiry into the Aurukun protest
and the behaviour of the police. This was more necessary than ever after
the “shame of Palm Island”.
“There we have a brother (Mulrunji) who has been buried long since and
we still have the police officer who is responsible for that unlawful
killing walking around Surfers Paradise scot free”, Watson said. “And
yet Aboriginal people who rose up in justifiable anger have since been
charged, convicted and sent to jail for allegedly damaging public property!
“You can always replace bricks and mortar but we have a man who met his
death by an unlawful assault administered by a serving member of the
police force. And the deputy coroner found that senior sergeant Chis
Hurley bashed Mulrunji to death on the floor of the Palm Island watch
house.”

Watson stressed that “a culture of ongoing genocide that began with Day
One of the white invasion back in 1788” continues to this day in the
police. To many police officers the blue uniform is just a licence to
bash, terrorise and, if need be, kill Aboriginal people.”

Watson commented that the challenge was to break the influence of the
Queensland Police Union, which continues to determine the agenda on
Aboriginal deaths in custody. As we know from the Fitzgerald Inquiry and
numerous other inquiries and investigations there are a number of issues
to do with the way the QPU conducts its business. The people of
Queensland should be very concerned about what is happening now.”

But Watson also stressed that police immunity is not just a Queensland
issue. “February 14 is the third anniversary of the death of T.J. Hickey
in Redfern. As we saw from the investigations into TJ’s death key police
officers at the scene were not required to give evidence. The coronial
inquest was corrupted and did not deliver any real or positive results
for the Hickey family or the community.

“That coronial inquest must be re-opened. All police officers with
knowledge of the events that day must be called before the court and
they must answer for what they did.”

Watson concluded with the undertaking that Aboriginal people and their
non-Indigenous supporters would continue their protest action until
justice for Aboriginal people is won.
“We stand squarely behind the line that has been drawn in the sand with
the blood of Mulrunji. We are going to stand behind that line and defend
it.
“We will continue to fight for justice because unless we can force the
Queensland government and judicial system to place a very real value on
the life of our brother then the life of an Aboriginal person on
Australian soil hasn’t any value at all.”

*FOR MORE INFORMATION: 0401 227 443 (Sam Watson) 0410 629 088 (Paul
Benedek)*

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Thirty Years of FBI Harassment and Misconduct, When the Truth Doesn't Matter By LEONARD PELTIER




from CounterPunch

"Much of the government's behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and in its prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed."
U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

For over 30 years I have sought justice from the United States Courts which have failed to provide me with any relief despite acknowledging numerous acts of Government misconduct. For example, after my trial, my lawyers issued Freedom of Information Act Requests ("FOIA") and discovered that the Government fabricated the ballistics evidence which it used at trial to argue that I shot the agents in cold blood. Once we revealed this egregious misconduct, the Government has had to admit on several occasions in open Court and before the Parole Commission that it could not prove I shot the agents and that it could not prove who shot the agents.

Despite the Government misconduct recognized by the Courts, I remain in prison. When we exposed the Government misconduct, the Government stopped arguing that I "shot the agents," and began arguing that my conviction should be upheld on aiding and abetting grounds, even though the only two people I could have aided and abetted, Robert Robideau and Dino Butler, were acquitted on self-defense grounds. In the Robideau and Butler trials, the Court allowed them to present evidence to show that they where shooting in self defense at unknown assailants who were shooting at houses occupied by women and children. In contrast, my case was moved to another Judge, Judge Benson, who prevented me from introducing evidence of self-defense and evidence of the war-like climate that existed on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation because of marauding groups of vigilantes hired by a corrupt tribal government, supported by the United States government.

Just as significant, no Court has ever explained how my conviction could be upheld on aiding and abetting grounds since I could not aid and abet myself, and I could not aid and abet my co-defendants since they were acquitted. So, just who did I aid and abet to warrant two consecutive life sentences? The Courts and the Government cannot answer that question. Yet, I remain in prison.

My case demonstrates the illegal means which our Government will utilize to ensure that I, a native American, am punished for the death of two FBI agents, without regard to whether I did it, which I did not, and without regard to the deprivation of my rights. All the Government cared about was that someone was punished for an incident provoked by the FBI, the corrupt tribal government, and its private police, known as the GOON squad. And yet, I remain in prison.

The United States Government keeps me imprisoned to justify the continuing abuses against, not only Native American people, but anyone who seeks to fight criminal abuses such as those committed and/or aided by the FBI on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation between 1973-1976. This Country has waged, and continues to wage, war not just against native Americans but against any form of domestic political dissent. Secret domestic intelligence programs, such as the well documented Cointelpro program and the Patriot Act, have eroded and destroy the constitutional rights and liberties of all peoples of this Nation. But, most people would rather ignore injustice, then take a stand against injustice and face the wrath of our Government. What I was not allowed to introduce into evidence was the indisputable evidence that United States Government and a corrupt tribal government committed war crimes against the Oglala people during the so-called "Reign of Terror," from 1973-1976. Yet, these crimes have never been uninvestigated, and, if anything, they have been ignored and certain propagandists have revised history to say they never occurred, similar to those who espouse that the genocide of Native American people never occurred in the Americas. The one exception is the murder of Anna Mae Aquash which the United States Government began pursuing earnestly nearly 30 years after her death, in order to smear me to harm my chances at parole through the use of hearsay testimony and unsubstantiated innuendo. I unequivocally deny that I had anything to do with the murder of Anna Mae, and I condemn those who murdered her and those who seek to smear me and make me a patsy for the crime they committed.

The indisputable Government misconduct which led to my wrongful conviction represents a threat to the liberties of each and every one of us. Perhaps this is what ultimately struck the conscience of Judge Heaney (a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit who despite the glaring evidence of Government misconduct, wrote a strained and legally embarrassing decision to deny my first habeas petition), and compelled him to write a letter supporting my request for presidential clemency.
As recently as the fall of 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stated:
Much of the government's behavior at the Pine Ridge Reservation and in its prosecution of Mr. Peltier is to be condemned. The government withheld evidence. It intimidated witnesses. These facts are not disputed.

As my lawyers wrote in a recent brief, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has repeatedly recognized specific instances of FBI misconduct in my case: The Eighth Circuit found that the FBI withheld critical ballistics evidence which raised questions "regarding the truth and accuracy of [FBI agent Evan] Hodge's testimony." The Eighth Circuit acknowledged that the FBI withheld critical evidence which was "newly discovered evidence indicating [that the government's ballistic's expert] may not have been telling the truth," and that the evidence withheld by the FBI created "inconsistencies casting strong doubts upon the government's case."
The Eighth Circuit also addressed the government's coercing of witnesses and extracting perjurious affidavits including the three fabricated affidavits of Myrtle Poor Bear which were used to extradite me from Canada. The FBI knew that Ms. Poor Bear was mentally incompetent. Yet, they had her sign three fabricated affidavits which falsely stated that she was my girlfriend and that she saw me kill Agents Coler and Williams. Poor Bear never knew me, and she was never at the Jumping Bull Compound on June 26, 1975, or any other date that I am aware of. The Eighth Circuit described the Myrtle Poor Bear episode as follows:
In February and March, 1976, Myrtle Poor Bear signed three affidavits which related her eyewitness account of the murders of the two agents on June 26, 1975. Two of these affidavits were considered by Canadian officials in the extradition proceedings. In testimony given outside of the presence of the jury at the trial, Poor Bear disclaimed virtually every allegation contained in the affidavits. She testified that she had been forced to sign the affidavits, which were prepared by FBI agents Price and Wood, under threats of physical harm.

The Eighth Circuit court recognized that "[t]he Poor Bear....testimony was certainly consistent with [my] theory [that the FBI framed me by manufacturing evidence and inducing witnesses to testify in accordance with its theory of the murders.]" Even in the face of this fraud, one of the prosecutors, Lynn Crooks, belligerently stated on television in 1990 that, even if he knew the affidavits were false, he still would not have hesitated to provide them to the Canadian prosecutor.

THE FBI'S ILLEGALL TACTICS IN ITS WAR ON THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT AND ME
I was a member of the American Indian Movement who, like many others, was subjected to a number of Counterintelligence (COINTELPRO) type activities by the FBI. "COINTELPRO" is the FBI acronym for a series of covert action programs directed against political domestic groups. This program was investigated and condemned by a Congressional hearing in the 1970s. With this unauthorized program, the FBI engaged in covert actions designed to 'disrupt' and 'neutralize' target groups and individuals," engaged in political dissent. One of the COINTELPRO type tactics used by the FBI and, in particular against AIM, was the infiltration of the legal defense by paid informants, violating attorney-client privilege. We have recently discovered evidence that the FBI did this in my case.

RECENTLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
In the face of Court expressions acknowledging and condemning the Government misconduct, the Courts continue to allow the FBI to engage in wrongful behavior by allowing them to withhold more than 140,000 documents which are located in FBI Field Offices throughout the country. Despite the passage of over 30 years, the Courts have justified the FBI's behavior by ruling that the Informant Files in my case must be protected because the release of such documents could impact the war on "international terrorism." Such a ludicrous and unfathomable reason can only undermine any remaining confidence we could possibly have that our system is based on justice and fairness.

With respect to AIM, and me in particular, we now know that the FBI used confidential informant sources to compromise attorney/client communications they illegally used to develop strategies for conviction. We recently discovered FOIA documents establishing that the FBI utilized Douglas Durham, a paid FBI confidential source who infiltrated the highest levels of AIM and was exposed on March 7, 1975, in my extradition proceedings from Canada. As one Court recognized, "Mr. Douglass Durham, infiltrated the American Indian Movement under instructions of the FBI, won the confidence of Dennis Banks and other leaders of the movement, occupied a series of high level positions in the organization."

These FOIA documents show that the FBI utilized Durham not only to provide information to William Halprin, the Chief Prosecutor from Canada, against me in connection with the extradition proceedings, but also as an "expert adviser on AIM." Halprin requested Durham's involvement "to enable him to utilize the source [Durham] to refute statements made by Peltier's defense." To purportedly avoid legal liability, Durham was told by the FBI not to execute any affidavits or to travel to Canada. "Durham has been instructed to provide information requested by Crown Attorney [and] .. If recontacted by Halprin, he would cooperate fully and would keep Omaha [FBI] advised of developments."

As my attorneys recently wrote, the Courts have indicated that this type of conduct crosses the line:
The informant, Douglass Durham, had worked in various undercover capacities prior to the Wounded Knee incident. His relationship with the FBI began in March 1973 when he supplied the FBI office in Des Moines, Iowa, with copies of photographs he had taken in a one-day visit to Wounded Knee. He later served in various leadership positions within AIM, including national security director and national administrator. He became a close companion of AIM leader Dennis Banks during the period including the Banks-Means trial in St. Paul. Throughout this period of intimate affiliation with AIM and its leaders, he was supplying information to the FBI.
In analyzing this issue, the Eighth Circuit described the troubling conduct by the FBI:
Were we concerned on this appeal with the question of whether the convictions of Dennis Banks and Russell Means, tried in St. Paul, could be upheld, we would have another case. There is evidence in the record and FBI files to indicate that Durham was privy to numerous conversations between Banks and his lawyers, that he was present in St. Paul during the course of the trial, and that he was in constant communication not only with Banks and the other defendants during the trial, but with the FBI. As the record here is devoid of that type of close proximity to the defense of these appellants and as no prejudice has been shown, we refuse to set aside the convictions of the appellants because of the activities of the informants.
The FBI permitted informants to attend both my trial and that of my co-defendants. In an FBI internal memo, the FBI discussed the circumstances under which informant sources could be approved to go to our trials:
"If approved by FBIHQ, sources should be specifically instructed to refrain from being parties to Defense Litigation strategies. Furthermore, they should be instructed that in the event they are unexpectedly placed in the position of being parties to such discussions, they should, where their informant status will not be compromised, leave such discussions immediately."

Durham himself acknowledged that this caution was little more than a wink and a smile. In the Wounded Knee Trials, Douglas Durham was similarly advised by the FBI not to engage in any activity that would violate confidences of the defense, nor to engage in any activities or relate to the FBI any information that had to do with defense tactics, or any legal aspect of the operations of AIM or the defense at that point. In spite of the advice he allegedly received from the FBI, Mr. Durham testified in the United States Senate about the 1974 trial of AIM leader Dennis Banks: "If Dennis and I were sitting in a room and an attorney would walk in and start talking, I couldn't jump up and say, 'I can't be here, the FBI won't allow it.'"

In a Teletype dated July 7, 1975 from the Special Agent in Charge of the Buffalo Field Office of the FBI to the FBI Director and Mr. Richard Held, Special Agent in Charge, Pine Ridge, South Dakota, The FBI indicated that a confidential source, much like Durham was allegedly advised by the FBI not to engage in any activity that would violate any confidences of my defense. The FBI however refuses to produce the name(s) of their informants and has been given unfettered discretion by the courts to keep this information from my legal team.

Despite our discovering this information, the Courts have let the Government be the arbiter of what documents to produce and what they can withhold. As such, the FBI has unfettered discretion to withhold documents from which it can be determined whether it engaged in misconduct, because it will not acknowledge it. As it is, the FBI deliberately failed to produce any documents from the time period of my trial in the exemplar of documents which it recently produced to the Court to allow it to determine whether the informant documents should be produced to me in an unredacted form. It is clear that it did so to prevent me from finding information they have hid that could affect my due process rights.

Indeed, a document recently produced by the FBI and recently introduced by my lawyers to a Magistrate Judge established that the FBI intentionally took actions to try to avoid producing documents in discovery in my case. But again, this seems to have had no impact on the Court. The United States Federal Courts have recognized overwhelming evidence of FBI misconduct in my case which has already been revealed, yet it has continued to allow the FBI to use exemptions under FOIA to shield its illegal tactics in this case, depriving me of my rights to a fair trail. I urge all of you who believe in justice to join my fight and cry out for the production of all documents related to my case. Why is the FBI still withholding documents? Why won't they produce all documents to me? To me the answer is obvious. I believe the answer is obvious to you also.
Leonard Peltier
# 89637-132
U.S.P. Lewisburg,
P.O. Box 1000,
Lewisburg, PA USA 17837
Leonard Peltier Defense Committee Website

Monday, January 01, 2007

Federal Bureau of Intimidation By Howard Zinn

Martin Luther King, Jr.

12/30/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- I thought it would be good to talk about the FBI because they talk about us. They don’t like to be talked about. They don’t even like the fact that you’re listening to them being talked about. They are very sensitive people. If you look into the history of the FBI and Martin Luther King-which now has become notorious in that totally notorious history of the FBI- the FBI attempted to neutralize, perhaps kill him, perhaps get him to commit suicide, certainly to destroy him as a leader of black people in the United States.

And if you follow the progression of that treatment of King, it starts, not even with the Montgomery Bus Boycott; it starts when King begins to criticize the FBI. You see, then suddenly Hoover’s ears, all four of them, perk up. And he says, okay, we have to start working on King.

I was interested in this especially because I was reading the Church Committee report. In 1975, the Senate Select Committee investigated the CIA and the FBI and issued voluminous reports and pointed out at what point the FBI became interested in King. In 1961-62 after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, after the sit-ins, after the Freedom Rides of ‘61, there was an outbreak of mass demonstrations in a very little, very Southern, almost slave town of southern Georgia called Albany. There had been nothing like this in that town. A quiet, apparently passive town, everybody happy, of course. And then suddenly the black people rose up and a good part of the black population of Albany ended up in jail. There were not enough jails for all who demonstrated.

A report was made for the Southern Regional Council of Atlanta on the events in Albany. The report, which was very critical of the FBI, came out in the New York Times. And King was asked what he thought of the role of the FBI. He said he agreed with the report that the FBI was not doing its job, that the FBI was racist, etcetera, etcetera.

At that point, the FBI also inquired who the author of that report was, and asked that an investigation begin on the author. Since I had written it, I was interested in the FBI’s interest in the author. In fact, I sent away for whatever information the FBI had on me, through the Freedom of Information Act. I became curious, I guess. I wanted to test myself because if I found that the FBI did not have any dossier on me, it would have been tremendously embarrassing and I wouldn’t have been able to face my friends. But, fortunately, there were several hundred pages of absolutely inconsequential material. Very consequential for the FBI, I suppose, but inconsequential for any intelligent person.

I’m talking about the FBI and U.S. democracy because here we have this peculiar situation that we live in a democratic country-everybody knows that, everybody says it, it’s repeated, it’s dinned into our ears a thousand times, you grow up, you pledge allegiance, you salute the flag, you hail democracy, you look at the totalitarian states, you read the history of tyrannies, and here is the beacon light of democracy. And, of course, there’s some truth to that. There are things you can do in the United States that you can’t do many other places without being put in jail.

But the United States is a very complex system. It’s very hard to describe because, yes, there are elements of democracy; there are things that you’re grateful for, that you’re not in front of the death squads in El Salvador. On the other hand, it’s not quite a democracy. And one of the things that makes it not quite a democracy is the existence of outfits like the FBI and the CIA. Democracy is based on openness, and the existence of a secret policy, secret lists of dissident citizens, violates the spirit of democracy.

There are a lot of other things that make the U.S. less than a democracy. For instance, what happens in police stations, and in the encounters between police and citizens on the street. Or what happens in the military, which is a kind of fascist enclave inside this democracy. Or what happens in courtrooms which are supposedly little repositories of democracy, yet the courtroom is presided over by an emperor who decides everything that happens in a courtroom -what evidence is given, what evidence is withheld, what instructions are given to the jury, what sentences are ultimately meted out to the guilty and so on.

So it’s a peculiar kind of democracy. Yes, you vote. You have a choice. Clinton, Bush and Perot! It’s fantastic. Time and Newsweek. CBS and NBC. It’s called a pluralist society. But in so many of the little places of everyday life in which life is lived out, somehow democracy doesn’t exist. And one of the creeping hands of totalitarianism running through the democracy is the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I think it was seeing the film Mississippi Burning that led me to want to talk about the FBI. I had sort of reached a point where I said, “Who wants to hear anymore about the FBI?” But then I saw Mississippi Burning. It relates a very, very important incident in the history of the civil rights movement in the U.S. In the summer of 1964, these three young men in the movement, two white, one black, had traveled to investigate the burning of a church in a place called Philadelphia, Mississippi-city of brotherly love.

They were arrested, held in jail, released in the night, followed by cars, stalked, taken off and beaten very, very badly with chains and clubs and shot to death- executed-June 21, 1964. The bodies were found in August. It’s a great theme for an important film. Mississippi Burning, I suppose, does something useful in capturing the terror of Mississippi, the violence, the ugliness.

But after it does that, it does something which I think is very harmful: In the apprehension of the murderers, it portrays two FBI operatives and a whole flotilla-if FBI men float-of FBI people as the heroes of this episode. Anybody who knows anything about the history of the civil rights movement, or certainly people who were in the movement at that time in the South, would have to be horrified by that portrayal.

I was just one of many people who was involved in the movement. I was teaching in Atlanta, Georgia, in a black college for about seven years from 1956 to 1963, and I became involved in the movement, in Albany, Georgia, and Selma, Alabama, and Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Greenwood and Greenville and Jackson, Mississippi in the summer of ‘64. I was involved with SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Anybody who was involved in the Southern movement at that time knew with absolute certainty: The FBI could not be counted on and it was not the friend of the civil rights movement. The FBI stood by with their suits and ties-I’m sorry I’m dressed this way today, but I was just trying to throw them off the track-and took notes while people were being beaten in front of them.

This happened again, and again, and again. The Justice Department, to which the FBI is presumably accountable, was called again and again, in times of stress by people of the civil rights movement saying, hey, somebody’s in danger here. Somebody’s about to be beaten, somebody’s about to be arrested, somebody’s about to be killed. We need help from the federal government. We do have a Constitution, don’t we? We do have rights.

We do have the constitutional right to just live, or to walk, or to speak, or to pray, or to demonstrate. We have a Bill of Rights. It’s America. It’s a democracy. You’re the Justice Department, your job is to enforce the Constitution of the United States. That’s what you took an oath to do, so where are you? The Justice Department wasn’t responding. They wouldn’t return phone calls, they wouldn’t show up, or when they did show up, they did nothing.

The civil rights movement was very, very clear about the role of the FBI. And it wasn’t just the FBI; it goes back to the Justice Department; back to Washington; back to politics; back to Kennedy appointing racist judges in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia to do favors for his Southern Democratic political cronies, only becoming concerned about black people when things appeared on television that embarrassed the administration and the nation before the world.

Only then did things happen. Oh, we’ll send troops to Little Rock, we’ll send troops to Oxford, Mississippi, and so on. Do something big and dramatic and so on. But in all the days and all the hours in between, before and after, if there’s no international attention, forget it. Leave these black folk at the mercy of the law enforcement officers down there. Just as after the Civil War, blacks were left at the mercy of Southern power and Southern plantation owners by Northern politicians who made their deal with the white South in 1877.

If you want to read the hour-by-hour description of this, you could read a wonderful book by Mary King, Freedom Song. She was a SNCC staffperson in the Atlanta office whose job was to get on the phone and call the newspapers, the government, the Justice Department and say: Hey, three young men have not come back from Philadelphia, Mississippi. She called and called and called and it took several days before she got a response. Deaf ears. They were dead. Probably none of those calls would have saved them.

It was too late, but there was something that could have saved them. And it’s something I haven’t seen reported in the press. If there had been federal agents accompanying the three on their trip, if there had been federal agents in the police station in Philadelphia, Mississippi, that might not have happened. If there had been somebody determined to enforce law, enforce constitutional rights, to protect the rights of people who were just going around, driving, talking, working, then those three murders might have been averted.

In fact, 12 days before the three disappeared, there was a gathering in Washington, D.C., on June 9, 1964. A busload of black Mississippians came all the way up-it was a long bus ride to Washington-to the National Theater.

There was a jury of fairly well known Americans- college presidents, writers, other people-assembled to hear the testimony. The black people’s testimony before the press and an audience was recorded and transcribed. They testified that what was going to happen in Mississippi that summer with all these volunteers coming down was very, very dangerous. They testified about their experiences, about their history of being beaten, about the bodies of black people found floating in the rivers of Mississippi and they said, people are going to get killed; we need the protection of the federal government.

Also appearing at this hearing were specialists in constitutional law who made the proper legal points that the federal government had absolute power to protect people going down into Mississippi. Section 333, Title 10 of the U.S. Code (some numbers burn themselves into you because you have to use them again and again) gives the federal government the power to do anything to enforce constitutional rights when local authorities either refused or failed to protect those rights.

So they take all this testimony at the National Theater and put it into a transcript and deliver it to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, hand deliver it to the White House, and ask the federal government to send marshals down to Mississippi. Not an army, a few hundred marshals, that’s all. Plainclothes people for protection. This is 1964; by now you’ve sent 40,000 soldiers to Vietnam, so you can send 200 plainclothes people to Mississippi. No response from the Attorney General, none from the President. Twelve days later those three men disappear.

Well, why didn’t they put that in the film? Why didn’t anybody say anything about that? So the FBI are the heroes of this film.

Well, that’s only part, as you know, of the history of the FBI. Going back, the FBI was formed first as the Bureau of Investigation under Theodore Roosevelt-don’t worry, I’m not going to take you year by year through this history. It’s a very depressing history.

But, it just interested me. In 1908, under Theodore Roosevelt, his Attorney General, a man named Bonaparte, a grand nephew of Napoleon-set up the Bureau of Investigation which later became the FBI. One of its first acts was to enforce a new federal law- the Mann Act. This law made it illegal to transport women across state lines for immoral purposes.

Yes, one of their first acts was to prosecute the black heavyweight champion, Jack Johnson, because he was living with a white woman and they actually crossed a state line. One of the first heroic acts of the FBI. They go way back. Racism goes way back in the FBI and comes way forward, comes right up to now. By the way-in the film they show a black FBI man. But there was no black person in the FBI in 1964. A chauffeur, maybe. A maid, maybe. No black FBI agents in 1964. But there was this black FBI agent in the film.

Yes, the racism comes right up to yesterday when a black FBI man-in Detroit, I think-is harassed by his fellow white FBI agents who do all sorts of funny things to him to make life miserable for him. You think, where is the solidarity among FBI people? FBI people, black and white together, we shall overcome. Well, apparently the FBI doesn’t believe in that.

There’s too much to say about the FBI and racism. It’s not just J. Edgar Hoover. Everybody says, oh, J. Edgar Hoover, he really hated black people. He hated the civil rights movement, but it’s not just him, of course. It’s too easy to pin all this on J. Edgar Hoover, to pin it just on the FBI as if they’re wildcards. The president says, oh sorry, we didn’t know what they were doing. Well, it’s just like Oliver North. A wildcard North was doing these crazy things and his defense was absolutely right: I did it for them. He did. He did it for them and now they have turned on him. He doesn’t have to worry, they’ll take good care of him. They take care of their own.

When people in the CIA and FBI commit crimes, how do they get handled? They don’t. They’re forgotten about. Do you know how many crimes have been committed by the FBI and the CIA? How many black bag jobs? Breaking and entering? Try breaking and entering. Really. Try breaking and entering in the daytime, or nighttime, and see what happens to you. Different punishments depending on what hour of the day. The FBI broke and entered again and again and again and again, hundreds and hundreds of times.

There were hundreds of FBI men involved in these breaks. Two men were actually prosecuted. This happens every once in a while. When huge public attention finally gets focused, they pick out two from the pack and prosecute them and they find them guilty and they sentence them. To what? To nothing. Fine, $5,000 for one person. That’s FBI petty cash. $3,500 for the other. And then they say that justice has been done and the system works.

Remember when Richard Helms of the CIA was found guilty of perjury in 1976? Hiss went to jail for four years for perjury, Helms didn’t go to jail for two hours. And Helms’s perjury, if you examine it, was far, far more serious than Alger Hiss’s, if Hiss was indeed guilty. But if you’re CIA, if you’re FBI, you get off.

But North is right; he did it for them. He did what they expected him, wanted him, to do. They use this phrase, plausible denial, a very neat device. You have to be able to do things that the President wants you to do but that he can deny he wanted you to do, or deny he ordered you to do if push comes to shove.

It’s not just the FBI. It’s the government. It’s part of the system, not just a few people here and there. The FBI has names of millions of people. The FBI has a security index of tens of thousands of people- they won’t tell us the exact numbers. Security index. That’s people who in the event of national emergency will be picked up without trial and held. Just like that. The FBI’s been preparing for a long time, waiting for an emergency.

You get horrified at South Africa, or Israel, or Haiti where they detain people without trial, just pick them up and hold them incommunicado. You never hear from them, don’t know where they are. The FBI’s been preparing to do this for a long time. Just waiting for an emergency. These are all countries in emergency; South Africa’s in an emergency, Chile was in an emergency, all emergencies.

James Madison made the point way back. One of the founding fathers. They were not dumb. They may have been rich and white and reactionary and slave holders but they weren’t dumb. Madison said the best way to infringe on liberty is to create an external menace.

What can a citizen do in a situation like this? Well, one thing is simply to expose the FBI. They hate to be exposed, they’re a secret outfit. Everything they do is secret. Their threat rests on secrecy. Don’t know where they are. Not everybody in a trench coat is an FBI agent. We don’t know where they are, who they are, or what they’re doing. Are they tapping? Right. And what are you going to do about it?

The one thing you shouldn’t think will do anything is to pass a law against the FBI. There are always people who come up with that. That’s the biggest laugh in the world. These are people who pay absolutely no attention to the law, again and again. They’ve violated the law thousands of times. Pass another law; that’s funny.

No, the only thing you can do with the FBI is expose them to public understanding-education, ridicule. They deserve it. They have “garbologists” ransacking garbage pails. A lot of interesting stuff in garbage pails. They have to be exposed, brought down from that hallowed point where they once were. And, by the way, they have been brought down. That’s one of the comforting things about what has happened in the United States in the last 30 years. The FBI at one point was absolutely untouchable.

Everybody had great respect for the FBI. In 1965 when they took a poll of Americans; do you have a strong admiration for the FBI? Eight-five percent of people said, “Yes.” When they asked again in ‘75, 35 percent said, “Yes.” That’s a big comedown. That’s education -education by events, education by exposure. They know they’ve come down in the public mind and so now they’re trying to look kinder and gentler. But they’re not likely to merge with the American Civil Liberties Union. They’re more likely, whatever their soothing words, to keep doing what they’re in the habit of doing, assaulting the rights of citizens.

The most important thing you can do is simply to continue exposing them. Because why does the FBI do all this? To scare the hell out of people. Were they doing this because of a Soviet invasion threat or because they thought the Socialist Workers Party was about to take over the country? Are they going after whoever their current target is because the country is in imminent danger, internal or external? No. They are doing it because they don’t like these organizations. They don’t like the civil rights organizations, they don’t like the women’s organizations, they don’t like the anti-war organizations, they don’t like the Central American organizations.

They don’t like social movements. They work for the establishment and the corporations and the politicos to keep things as they are. And they want to frighten and chill the people who are trying to change things. So the best defense against them and resistance against them is simply to keep on fighting back, to keep on exposing them. That’s all I have to say.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Where is the Justice? Anti-Castro Terrorist Gets Only 4 Years By GLORIA La RIVA


from CounterPunch

A man like Santiago Alvarez, who can be heard on a telephone, calling on one of his underlings to throw C-4 explosives into Havana's Tropicana nightclub and "do away with all that"--all that being hundreds of people--a man like Santiago Alvarez who had machine guns, bazookas and grenades in a massive Miami arsenal, is sentenced to only a four-year prison sentence this week in a southern Florida federal court.

Yet, the Cuban Five, five men who were in Miami working to prevent a terrorist like Alvarez from killing innocent people, who never possessed a weapon, who never engaged nor intended to engage in the "espionage conspiracy" they were falsely convicted of, received 15 years to double life after their 2001 trial, and the added punishment of being denied family visits.

Alvarez and his accomplice Osvaldo Mitat were allowed to plead guilty to only one charge of weapons possession. Before their sentencing, federal judge James Cohn said, "This court recognizes the ultimate objective and goal of Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Mitat has always been a free and democratic Cuba. This court does not question the alruistic motive here. However we are a nation of laws."

The government's and courts' impunity towards the Miami terrorists is becoming more and more blatant.

Almost every day it seems, more news is coming to light in Miami of the vast and deep network of rightwing Cuban-American terrorists and their murderous plots: Antonio Llama, Roberto Ferro, Alvarez, Mitat, and of course, the most dangerous of them all, Luis Posada Carriles. Posada's cohort, Orlando Bosch, gets to appear regularly on Miami TV, itching to admit his atrocious crime of the 1976 bombing of Cubana Flight 455 that killed 73 people. Bosch and Posada worked hand-in-hand in the plane bombing.

Where is the justice?

Last Aug. 9, 2005, an historic and unprecedented ruling was made by a panel of three judges in the case of the Cuban Five. With a powerfully-worded 93-page decision granting the Five a new trial, the 11th Circuit Court judges ruled that the situation in Miami was a "perfect storm" effectively denying Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González and René González the constitutional right to due process.

Part of that "perfect storm" described by the judges was the evidence of terrorist plots the Five had gathered while infiltrating the extremist Miami organizations. The trial judge Joan Lenard denied much of that evidence as irrelevant..

A new trial outside of Miami for the Cuban Five would have undoubtedly exonerated them. However, the hand of the Bush administration intervened last year, when U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed the Five's victory, to try to overturn the panel's ruling for a new trial.

Unfortunately, the en banc panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals set aside the Cuban Five's victory. It ruled ignominiously on Aug. 9, 2005, that the Five received a fair trial in Miami, and that Judge Lenard properly denied them a change of venue out of Miami.

While George W. Bush unleashes bombs and destruction causing the deaths of Iraqis, Afghanis and U.S. soldiers--all in the name of a supposed war on terror--he has remained completely silent about the rightwing Cuban-American terrorists who reside in the United States.

His actions are those of coddling the Cuban-American terrorists. U.S. Homeland Security waited two full months before arresting Luis Posada Carriles after he entered the United States illegally last year. When DHS was finally forced to detain Posada on May 17 because of a public press conference he held that morning, Homeland Security prosecutors avoided charging him with more serious crimes, like the Cubana plane bombing.

Instead, Posada's only formal charge to date is illegal immigration entry. To the extent that federal authorities may currently be investigating him for his role into several 1997 Cuban hotel bombings, it is probably to avoid prosecuting him for the plane bombing. That is because Bush Sr. was CIA director at the time of the Cubana bombing; Posada was a longtime CIA operative.

It is more than an oversight by Bush or previous presidents that Miami terrorists have existed, organized plots, and carried out attacks with total impunity.

The Miami terrorist phenomenon is financed, armed, and given a green light by the CIA, FBI and other arms of the government.

There is mounting evidence that proves without a doubt, terrorism against Cuba is part of U.S. government policy.

If the government won't listen to justice and reason in the case of the Cuban Five, if it instead chooses to vengefully prosecute them to keep them locked up for years for daring to defend their homeland of Cuba, then it is up to the people to fight ever more for their freedom. The Cuban Five's mission was not only saving Cuban lives, but protecting all potential victims of the Miami mafia, including U.S. people.

The American people would embrace the Five if they were only aware of their cause and mission. September 11 and Oklahoma are permanent reminders of the horror of terrorism. Terrorism against the Cuban people is no less criminal. More than 3,400 Cuban people have died from U.S.-originated terrorist attacks.

Justice demands that the Cuban Five anti-terrorist activists be freed immediately. In addition, Posada should be extradited to Venezuela or prosecuted fully in the United States for bombing of Cubana Flight 455.

Gloria La Riva is coordinator of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five in San Francisco. She can be reached at: glorialariva@hotmail.com

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Justice for Mulrunji & Indigenous communities! by Dave Riley





The report handed down by Queensland deputy coroner Christine Clements on September 27 found that Palm Islander Mulrunji not only died in police custody on November 19, 2004, but died at the hands of the arresting police officer.


  • Watch slideshow of Brisbane Oct 10 protest against Black death in custody

  • The coroner’s report is unequivocal on this point: Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley caused Mulrunji’s death. But in Queensland, under the Peter Beattie Labor government, there is one rule for coppers and another for the rest of the population — especially Murris (Queensland Aborigines).

    Straight after Mulrunji’s death on Palm Island Hurley was promoted and transferred to a plum posting on the Gold Coast, and for the past two years has continued to work as a police officer.

    Clements’ report not only accuses Hurley of killing Mulrunji,it reveals that members of the Queensland police force conspired to cover up Hurley’s role. The report also found that at the Palm Island watch-house there was no attempt to comply with the protocols recommended by the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

    Queensland Murris expect justice, and Mulrunji’s family some closure. But Hurley was not relieved of his policing duties at any time since Mulrunji’s death. It was only as a result of the massive outcry, some of which came from within the Beattie government, that Hurley’s lawyers asked that their client be stood down, on full pay. This happened two days before the October 10 march on state parliament to demand justice.

    The coroner’s report has now gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who can recommend any charges that may flow from its findings. But the position of Queensland’s Murri community is unequivocal: Hurley must be sacked and charged. Any other police officer who played any role in Mulrunji’s death must also be suspended and charged. The state government must implement all of the 40 recommendations handed down by the state coroner.

    Premier Beattie has hidden behind a mantra of “due process” in this case, yet the state has stood by its man in blue, ignoring for two years the demand that the officer be stood down. This same racist approach has informed the Beattie government’s recent decision to dismantle the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and its refusal to agree to further negotiations about stolen wages.

    As we approach the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum that removed the constitutional discrimination against Aboriginal people — the highest “yes” vote ever in a federal referendum, with 90.77% voting for the change — the Queensland government’s response to this latest miscarriage of justice is even more shameful.

    The Socialist Alliance supports the Queensland Murris’ call for a national campaign to address the huge problems facing Indigenous communities — such as those on Palm Island — focused on employment, housing, health care and education.

    There also needs to be a national campaign around the 40 recommendations handed down by the coroner in Mulrunji’s case. Programs such as Brisbane’s MurriWatch — a visitor program covering all city watch-houses and run by the Indigenous community — need to be generalised nationally.

    The alternative is a continuation of the terrorising by racist cops of Indigenous communities, which will lead to more Aborigines dying in police custody.

    Socialist Alliance is urging national support for protest actions on November 19, the second anniversary of Mulrunji’s death.

    [Dave Riley is a member of the Socialist Alliance national executive.]

    From Green Left Weekly, October 18, 2006.

    Wednesday, October 11, 2006

    Palm Island Death in Custody Brisbane Protest


    by Dave Riley




















    Brisbane:On October 10th members of Queensland's indigenous community
    and their supporters marched on the Queensland state parliament.The
    protest had been called to demand justice for Palm Islander Mulrinji,
    killed in police custody in November 2004.

    The intention was to present petitions collected throughout the state
    which demanded that the police officer found responsible in the recent
    coroners report for Mulrinji's death be sacked. The police officer
    named, Chris Hurley, had in the time since the Aboriginal's death,
    been promoted and transferred from Palm Island to the Gold Coast and no adminsitrative action had been taken against him.

    This was a militant march -- and the determination and anger of those
    particpating is clear from this recording which begins at the gates of
    parliament.Speakers were Sam Watson, a leader of the Brisbane Murri
    community. members of Mulrinji's family from Palm Island, and state
    premier, Peter Beattie.

    Police racism: Stop deaths in custody!

    Dave Riley, Brisbane

    In a damning report released on September 27, Queensland’s acting state coroner, Christine Clements, has criticised the initial investigation into the 2004 Palm Island death in custody of Mulrunji, saying that it failed to meet appropriate guidelines. Clements also found that Senior Sergeant Christopher Hurley caused Mulrunji’s death and accused the police of failing to investigate his death fully.

    Mulrunji, 36, was found dead in his cell at around 11am on November 19, 2004.

    Since the release of the report, Queensland’s police union, police commissioner and police minister have tried to disparage its findings. Clements’ recommendations have now gone to Leanne Clare, Queensland’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), to decide whether charges will be laid.

    The case and its consequences were addressed by Murri activist and Socialist Alliance leader Sam Watson at a Socialist Alliance meeting in Brisbane on October 4. The following is abridged from his presentation.

    ***

    Palm Island in 2004 was a typical remote Murri community, with enormous social problems. Unemployment has always been around 90-95%, housing is appalling, as is access to schooling and health care. It is just an appalling place in the way of infrastructure.

    On this Saturday morning, our brother Mulrunji was walking home. He had just done his crab pots. He’d had a bit of a charge, but he wasn’t intoxicated.

    There were two coppers out and about. An Aboriginal copper named Lloyd Bengaroo and this senior sergeant Chris Hurley were in this house attending to a domestic situation. Mulrunji apparently made some comment to the black liaison officer to the effect, ''Why are you hassling other Aboriginal people?’‘. He wasn’t violent or stand overish.

    None of the coppers on the island knew him because he had no history of being in the lockup or causing any problems, so he just kept walking. Hurley took affront at that and pursued him.

    Independent witnesses attest that Hurley used an enormous amount of force to subdue Mulrunji and throw him into the police van. Mulrunji was then transported to the watch-house.

    Again we have black witnesses and police witnesses. The Aboriginal witnesses gave strong evidence about the degree of force Hurley used to remove Mulrunji from the police wagon and get him into the watch-house. At one point, Mulrunji was knocked to the ground and Hurley stood over him and applied full body blows.

    Hurley is a large bloke, over six feet tall and 23-26 stone. He is well used to dishing out corporal punishment because he has a lengthy background of policing in remote Aboriginal communities. There have been a number of situations where it is alleged that he assaulted Aboriginal people, but nothing has been taken through to a conclusion.

    This assault on Mulrunji went on for some time and he was then dragged into the cell and thrown onto the floor. His condition wasn’t checked.

    The young police officer in the watch-house went in about 45 minutes later then came back out and said, “We’ve got trouble. He’s very cold, he’s clammy, he’s not breathing. Something bad has happened.”

    They called the ambulance; it took 13 minutes to get there. The ambulance officers said it was no use attempting resuscitation because Mulrunji was dead. The family came up when they saw the ambulance come but they were sent away. The coppers said everything was OK.

    Lies

    The police rang Townsville for guidance. They then locked the situation down, denied access to any other person and cooked up their stories about what had happened.

    Their story was that the injuries Mulrunji died from were caused by him stumbling, drunk, on the front steps of the watch-house. That was it; no assault ever happened.

    Two senior officers from Townsville came over that night. Hurley picked them up at the airport, showed them the point of arrest and the watch-house, then they went for a beer and a feed at Hurley’s place. There was no distance between Hurley and the investigating police, even though a death in custody had occurred and they were supposed to immediately shift into the protocols laid down by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the [Queensland] Crime and Misconduct Commission. Most of these two officers’ time on the island was spent in Hurley’s company.

    In the meantime, the family and Palm community had found out that Mulrunji was dead. There was confusion and a lot of hurt.

    The body was taken to the hospital and placed in the morgue. The chief medical officer from Townsville undertook an autopsy. Six days later, the autopsy report revealed that Mulrunji had suffered massive trauma to the abdomen. He also had four broken ribs, a burst spleen and his liver had been severed in two. The forensic pathologist said it would have taken an enormous amount of force to have caused those injuries.

    The community reacted. The police station was burned down, but some allege that only the police could have lit the fire, which was started in the watch-house room where Hurley and Mulrunji’s clothing had been stored. The DNA evidence was destroyed.

    The local coppers were evacuated and the crack public order squad came out with weapons to subdue the “rampaging natives”. They went berserk through the community, terrorising people for days. They identified the main leaders and put them under lock and key. Those coppers are still over there on Palm.

    The family and the community requested a second autopsy. It confirmed the findings of the first and the body was finally buried.

    At that time, Mulrunji’s mother, already ill, passed away because of the trauma she had been through. Then, five weeks ago, Mulrunji’s only child, just 17 years old and so traumatised and despairing of ever achieving justice for his father, committed suicide on Palm. Three generations of one family have been buried because of this copper’s murderous assault.

    Hurley was transferred to Surfers Paradise, a plum police posting. He was also given a rise in rank and a pay rise.

    After the first inquiry was closed without handing down any findings, Clements launched the second inquiry and delivered 40 findings and recommendations.

    Clements found that Mulrunji had died in the police watch-house from substantial injuries and these injuries were sustained from an assault by Hurley.

    The police union has attempted to stage-manage the entire process from day one. It tried to intimidate the Aboriginal witnesses, but they refused to be shaken by the battery of top police lawyers. They knew what they had seen and heard.

    There needs to be pressure maintained on the Beattie government. Even when the findings came down, the police commissioner and the police minister refused to suspend or sack Hurley. They merely moved him from active duty to desk duty.

    The glaring fact that emerged from the Clements’ inquiry is that Mulrunji committed no crime. There was no reason why he should have been detained, arrested or taken to the watch-house.

    The coppers on Palm were questioned at length during both inquiries about their knowledge of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. They said time after time that they weren’t aware of the commission, that they didn’t know what the recommendations stated. This is bullshit because the video surveillance equipment in the Palm Island watch-house was paid for by money from the commission.

    That surveillance equipment was turned off when Mulrunji entered the watch-house and only resumed at the point when Mulrunji’s body was on the floor. No copper has owned up to turning off that camera. If anything, the 139 royal commission recommendations have shown the police how to avoid prosecution.

    Support

    The Aboriginal community in Brisbane is in daily contact with the mob on Palm. I have blood relatives on Palm. We’re determined to up the stakes.

    Pressure needs to be maintained on the Beattie government to identify Hurley’s crimes and immediately sack him. We don’t want this thug wearing a police uniform and being in a position to kill someone else.

    The Queensland government owes the Palm Island community an enormous amount. It needs to be held accountable for the way it has consistently underfunded and under-resourced Aboriginal communities like Palm Island.

    But Palm Island people can’t do it by themselves; they need our support and the Brisbane Murri community will certainly give them that.

    Time after time we have gone into inquiries and the system has conspired against us and delivered no outcomes. But in this case there is enough evidence for a court to make a criminal finding against the police officer responsible.

    We are going to do some serious political business over the next period and we’re looking to other groups across our community, other comrades, to stand with us and march with us.

    We’re also going to demand that any preliminary hearings take place where the crime happened. Let Chris Hurley face his day of judgement before the Palm Island community.

    [The full text of Sam Watson’s talk is available at Leftcast, . The state coroner’s report is available at < href="mailto:270906.doc"><270906.doc>.]


    From Green Left Weekly, October 11, 2006.
    Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

    Thursday, October 05, 2006

    Interviews with Paul Hill Guildford Four & Johnnie Walker of the Birmingham Six


    Paul Hill in the middle behind the Birmingham Six, Johnnie Walker on the right.





    This interview with Paul Hill, one of the Guildford Four, was done during his trip to Australia to campaign for the release of Tim Anderson. As Paul points out there's common ground in both of these police frame­-ups. It went to air on Radio Skid Row's Radio Solidarity show on May 5 1991.

    Togs: Paul do you think fabrication of evidence is institutionalized as a normal police method?

    Paul: I think in many incidents it can just be individuals. But I think in cases political, it certainly is a procedural. There are many more police officers corrupt than we are lead to believe. I know from having been in prison and having spoken to people who were engaged with corrupt police officers, that there are at least three or four dozen corrupt police still investigating crimes in London and these are very senior officers. The problem we have is, once a police officer has been found to be guilty of doctoring and fabricating evidence, nothing seems to happen. As a result of it, none of these people are made accountable and if you don't make these people accountable, what you are actually saying to police as a whole is; "You can do what you want, by any means, procure the evidence for a conviction." That has definitely had a large bearing on Tim Anderson's case because the officers involved in his first framing‑up, were actually awarded medals for velour and still have them. They were not made accountable for the first frame‑up and I think that's very disturbing.

    Togs: One thing about the Guildford Four that stands out is the senior position now, sixteen years later, of one the police involved in fitting you up.

    Paul: One of them is now the commander of the Metropolitan police in London. A metropolis of eight to nine million people and that is a disturbing aspect.

    I think one of the first things in making these people accountable is that the media has to expose them and the media has a moral obligation, not just to expose corrupt police but also to safeguard society as a whole. If we have any kind of investigative journalism what so ever, then surely this must be the issues that those people tackle.

    Togs: In your case and also Tim's the role the media has played has actually been supporting the prosecution.

    Paul: Well, the media played a role inasmuch as they generated the mass hysteria that was abounding when I was arrested. I can relate that to the hysteria that was generated here. The media unfortunately are used as an extension of the State and, in my own case and certainly in the case of Tim, the State deemed itself under attack.

    Togs: So we are really dealing with the political nature of the state?

    Paul: Absolutely! I think that's abundantly clear and glaringly obvious!

    Togs: You were the first person arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was drafted for the Irish.

    Paul: The Prevention of Terrorism Act was a racist piece of legislation inasmuch as it only applied to Irish people. How would the American public react to legislation passed by Senators in Congress that only applied to Italian people or Israeli people? It's absolutely absurd, bearing in mind that the Prevention of Terrorism Act breaks the European convention of human rights, which actually ruled that a seven‑day detention order is an infringement of your civil liberties.

    Britain's deregulation from that is an example of the whole blasé attitude of contempt for human rights in regard to Irish people.

    Togs: How did you cope with fifteen years in prison, four of those years in solitary confinement?

    Paul: I coped with great difficulty and I would not have anyone believe for a moment that it was easy in prison; it wasn't. I was moved fifty‑two times between thirty different jails in an effort to mentally disorientate me and destroy me physically.

    I was assaulted on numerous occasions; I was assaulted so severely in the aftermath of prison disturbances in 1976 that I was awarded by the Home Office five hundred pounds compensation. I spent ‑one thousand six hundred and forty days in solitary confinement.

    I was confined in body belts, naked, for very long periods; up to seven days. No matter what the state said about me, or what the prison authorities did to me physically, they could never make me mentally guilty and that was my motivation and driving force.

    Togs: Was what you and others faced in the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six the direct result of the second class nature of Irish people in British society?

    Paul: Irish people are second class citizens and I don't mean to speak discouragingly of Negroes whatsoever but we are the white Negroes of Europe and always have been.

    Togs: The British legal system is a major part of Australian law. What do you see in common between your case and Tim's?

    Paul: The obvious parallels, the hysteria of the time and the content of the evidence. There was no eye witness or forensic evidence against Tim and the only evidence against Tim is a discredited verbal. I'm amazed by this, if there weren't victims and Tim is just as much a victim as the three people who died, the whole thing would be an absolute farce. Nobody believed the evidence of Pederick, the police didn't believe his evidence nor the evidence of Denning.

    I'm profoundly disturbed that Denning is to be released in November and I would certainly discourage him from coming to England. So if he's reading this... I can't believe that the evidence of habitual criminal, a man who in his last prison escape ended up killing a prison officer...How can any credibility be given to this man who has a personal motive, i.e. he wishes to be released from prison? He has a monetary motivation and figures have been quoted in the hundred thousand dollar bracket ‑that's more than he ever earned from his bank robberies.

    Togs: You've mentioned Denning as a prison informer. What do you think of the use of prison informers by police?

    Paul: I think people in Australian society haven't lost their convict past and they're not all in prison? To lend a prison informer policy any credibility whatsoever actually telling people and criminals are cunning individuals. That it is in prisoner’s best interests to invent something against someone because they will be released as a payment; it's absurd and very dangerous realm of gaining information. I've seen prison informants and know what they're capable of and they are not people I would believe for one moment. Legal people in Australia should be very disturbed indeed because it's a piece of evidence which from start to finish is incredibly dubious to say the very least.

    Togs: Are there other cases like the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six that we don't know about?

    Paul: I know that there is at least another twelve individuals serving life sentences for offences they haven't committed. I would not suggest that Irish people have a monopoly on injustice, they certainly don't. Injustice tends to be perpetrated against people from vulnerable sections in society, immigrant and working class groups and groups that have been preyed upon by the police for a very long time. Unless we can have a system of justice that actually has respect for of all the sections of the community, then we don't have any kind of just system of dispensing legal rights to individuals. There's an old adage that when law becomes an injustice, resistance becomes a duty and that's how it should be seen.

    British `justice' on trial

    JOHNNIE WALKER, one of the Birmingham Six, is currently on a tour of Australia sponsored by the Australian Irish Congress. The six, all Irish, were released earlier this year after 16 years in prison, having been framed for two pub bombings in Birmingham in 1974.

    Togs: What was it like when you were first arrested back in 1974?

    It was very hard. In 1974 no-one wanted to know anything about us. The police just had a free hand in anything they wanted to do because public opinion was on their side. Nobody wanted to believe us.

    What was the basis of the police approaching the six of you?

    We were on our way to a funeral in Belfast. We were stopped getting off the train. The bloke said to us,” You lads come from Birmingham?” We said yes. “Did you hear what happened in Birmingham?” We said no, and he told us that bombs went off in Birmingham.

    Then two policemen came forward and said, “Can you help us in our inquiries, you know, just clear yourselves?” We said yes. We went in there, sat down. They searched our bags, then let us go outside and I had a cigarette. Then they asked us, “Would you mind helping us in our inquiries more?”, we said certainly.

    We went down to the police station. This is about 12.15 at night, everything was all right, then at 3 a.m. a crowd of policemen came up from Birmingham. I couldn't believe what they done. They stripped me naked, took my clothes off me, screwed my arms up my back, marched me out of this room, walked me down a corridor towards a cell. There was another policeman behind me. I didn't see him; he kicked me in the back and they just started beating me up.

    What was the role of George Reade?

    He was the chief of the whole investigation. I blame him a lot because I reckon he couldn't control his own police force and that gave them the upper hand to do what they wanted do. I don't know if these men came from the scene of the crime, but we heard after that they did. What happened in Birmingham that night was a disaster. But what they done to us was also a disaster, and two wrongs don't make a right.

    What was the trial like?

    We had a junior solicitor who had only done divorce cases. I never actually met my queen's counsel till two days before the trial started. We'd seen the juniors but never the top man himself. The best thing about it was, the judge who put us away was made a lord, the QCs and the prosecution were all made judges. So you think what that means. Was it a fit-up? Was it a whitewash? Yes it was, 100%.

    What was it like maintaining your innocence during the 16 years in prison?

    The first six years were the worst. Nobody wanted to know. We were up in front of Lord Denning [in 1980]; he turned around and said, That these men are telling the truth: that means the police were telling lies and fit these men up.

    It was 11 years after that to prove that we're innocent; it was very, very hard. But then, after about eight or nine years, Cardinal O'Fiach came on the scene and he went back home to Ireland, told the people there we were innocent and then the campaign seem to snowball after that.

    What was the campaign like at the start?

    Our campaign started off with our six wives, and when they got tired, our daughters took over. It was mostly our daughter who fought my campaign.

    We also had great support from the people here in Australia. That's why I'm so happy to be over here. The Australian Irish Congress invited me, and that gives me an opportunity to say thanks to the people of Australia.

    We had a campaign even here and all over in America, Canada as well. [British Labour MP] Chris Mullens was really brilliant; he wrote a book about us, campaigned in Ireland. Then we also got a solicitor who believed in us.

    Also a lot of English people supported us as well. These are people who believed in something called justice, but there's no such thing as British justice. The campaign was the most important thing. Public opinion put me in prison; public opinion got me out of prison.

    You've got the Birmingham Six -- six Irishmen free; Guildford Four -- three Irishmen and an Englishwoman free; Maguire Seven -- Maguire family free. Now we've got Judith Ward coming up for a court of appeal, and there's three black men going for their appeal over the Tottenham police killing. These are the cases you're hearing about, but there's others. We've opened a can of worms

    The Pogues song Streets of Sorrow Birmingham Six

    Oh farewell you streets of sorrow
    And farewell you streets of pain
    Ill not return to feel more sorrow
    Nor to see more young men slain
    Through the last six years I’ve lived through terror
    And in the darkened streets the pain
    Oh how I long to find some solace
    In my mind I curse the strain

    So farewell you streets of sorrow
    And farewell you streets of pain
    No Ill not return to feel more sorrow
    Nor to see more young men slain

    There were six men in birmingham
    In guildford theres four
    That were picked up and tortured
    And framed by the law
    And the filth got promotion
    But theyre still doing time
    For being irish in the wrong place
    And at the wrong time
    In Ireland they’ll put you away in the maze
    In England they’ll keep you for seven long days
    God help you if ever you’re caught on these shores
    The coppers need someone
    And they walk through that door

    You’ll be counting years
    First five, then ten
    Growing old in a lonely hell
    Round the yard and the stinking cell
    From wall to wall, and back again

    A curse on the judges, the coppers and screws
    Who tortured the innocent, wrongly accused
    For the price of promotion
    And justice to sell
    May the judged by their judges when they rot down in hell

    May the whores of the empire lie awake in their beds
    And sweat as they count out the sins on their heads
    While over in Ireland eight more men lie dead
    Kicked down and shot in the back of the head.



    Tim Anderson & The Hilton Bombing Frame Up

    A person in a pink shirt

AI-generated content may be incorrect.









    Public and ABC radio we the boldest sector of the mass media in critically discussing issues of my case, both before and after the trial. Public radio journalists Adrian Flood, John Tognolini and Fiona Sewell ran investigative features on the case as it unfolded. ABC radio journalist Sharon Davis presented 'Background Briefing' reports on the Pederick story as well as Denning and prisoner‑informers, the latter being an important influence on the eventual decision to hold an ICAC inquiry into the prisoner‑informer issue.



    Tim Anderson, Take Two, The Criminal Justice System Revisited, 1992



    “At the CIB Rogerson and another detective, named Howard, eventually approached me and I said, ’I’m not going to answer any questions. Can you tell me what I’m being charged with?

    Howard replied, ‘Well, slow down, you may not be charged with anything’.

    I said, ’It’s a serious thing to arrest someone and not charge them with anything’.

    ‘Well, we’d better charge you with something then, hadn’t we? he responded. Rogerson then approached and told me, ‘you are being charged with conspiracy to murder Mr Robert Cameron’. I said nothing, as I took this in, but Rogerson continued, ‘You’ve had a pretty good run, but I think we’ve got enough to convict you now…. I feel like giving you a good hiding; what do say about that?’

    ‘There be consequences if you did that’. I responded indignantly. ‘What do you mean by that? He asked angrily.

    ‘What would you do if I assaulted you?’ I replied, rhetorically.

    Rogerson jumped up and kicked me over the chair I was on saying, ‘You fucking cunt, are you threatening me?’ I fell onto the floor, and he came alongside me, kicking me in the side. He repeated his question as he dropped his knee onto my diaphragm, stopping me breathing. I moved my hands onto his knee to remove the pressure and he drove his knee into my chin. Are you threatening me? He demanded again, and I replied ‘I’m not threatening you’. I noticed my lower lip was split.”



    Tim Anderson, Take Two, The Criminal Justice System Revisited, 1992




    Criminal justice indeed

    Take Two: The Criminal Justice System Revisited
    By Tim Anderson
    Bantam, 1992. 376 pp. $34.95
    Reviewed by John Tognolini

    Tim Anderson's new book is a stunning portrait of a police vendetta and an insight into this country's criminal justice system.

    “If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, 'law and order' must be second last”, Anderson writes. “In recent years Australian governments and oppositions have been attempting to outdo each other in adding to police powers and penalties ...

    “The total Australian police budget increased by 44 per cent, in real terms, through the 1980s. This correlates very closely with economic crisis and the failure of governments to address real social and economic problems ... The very same communities that cop economic recession the hardest are also the targets -- the scapegoats -- of the push for 'law and order'.”

    There are accounts here that will shock many people -- for instance, when Tim was verballed and bashed by detective Roger Rogerson over the supposed “conspiracy” to murder Robert Cameron.

    After they had spent six and a half years in prison, the case ended with pardons and $100,000 for each of the three falsely accused. However, no disciplinary action was ever taken against the police officers who carried out this action; in fact they are still holding bravery awards.

    Rogerson fell from grace with the police force, but the other officers have been promoted. John Burke was chief inspector of the Special Weapons Operations Section that killed Aboriginal David Gundy in his Marrickville home in April 1989. The other police officer is now Superintendent Dennis Gilligan.

    A close associate of Gilligan, Burke and Rogerson was a principal character in the second frame-up of Tim Anderson, Detective Inspector Aarne Tees.

    On May 30, 1989, Tees arrested and charged Anderson for three counts of murder resulting from the 1978 Hilton bombing. Three months before this, Tim had embarrassed Dennis Gilligan at an international legal seminar held in Sydney. Ian Fraser, a long-time member of Prisoners Action Group, who shared a cell with Tim during his first frame-up sentence at Long Bay jail, later told me: ”I was present at that altercation ... Tim merely got to his feet and said, there was a verballer in the audience who verballed a friend of his, and with that Superintendent Dennis Martin Gilligan bounced to his feet and said it was a load of Ananda Marga lies etc. He sort of gave himself up. We were instantly amused by it all. But the ramification of it in the out of the way. He became embarrassing.”

    Ray Denning, the former prisoner activist who had become an informer, verballed Anderson, saying that Anderson had confessed to him about the Hilton, even though prison records showed that the two of them were not in the same prison when Denning said this had occurred. This verbal was the basis for Tees charging Tim with the Hilton bombing.

    After Tim was charged, Evan Pederick confessed to the Hilton bombing, saying he did it under the direction of Tim Anderson. When he made his startling confession to Queensland police, they gave him a cup of tea and drove him home.

    The response of Aarne Tees was totally different; he flew north to interview Pederick. Here's an example of his technique:

    “Pederick: ... and together with fifty sticks of gelignite I'd either be killed or I'd be severely injured and I thought ...

    “Tees: Fifty, wouldn't be fifty, would be fifteen?

    “Pederick: It wasn't fifteen, fifty's in my head.

    “Tees: You couldn't fit fifty in the bin

    “Pederick: There was more, more than fifteen, much more than fifteen. They're the size of candles, about that long, you know what they're like, about that wide.

    “Tees: Mmm.

    “Pederick: Would have been three lots about that wide taped up, so there'd probably be three times, probably only about twenty, don't know why I had fifty in my head.”

    On this sort of “evidence”, Tim Anderson had to spend another seven and half months in the prison system. His description of being back inside prison is moving. “Jail is like a working-class boys' school gone to seed. The kids that used to throw rubbers at the teachers now knock off cars, take drugs and rob houses. They're a bit older, but a lot of the games are the same, and a lot of the kids still haven't learnt to read or write.”

    His vivid descriptions of overcrowded jails, violence and the backward, repressive attitude of the Corrective Services bureaucracy are damning indictments of Australian society.

    The book covers not just the frame-up but also the campaign against it. From the time of his arrest, many people gathered and formed themselves into the Campaign Exposing the Frame-up of Tim Anderson, CEFTA. When he was imprisoned, the campaign swelled, organising public meetings, poster and graffiti runs, bail applications and petitions and challenging those in the media who the frame-up.

    Anderson deals also with the media, in particular the role played by Janet Fife-Yeomans and Ben Hills of the Sydney Morning Herald and Channel Nine's Steve Barrett. He writes, “The power of the mass media is a formidable force: constructing our view of the world, shaping community attitudes, reflecting powerful private and state interests. It is easy to despise but difficult to ignore. To me it was chilling to sense the personal hostility of some sections of the mass media and to feel, for a time, their crusading zeal turned against me. They had created and were feeding themselves on a myth that I was some sort of powerful figure to be `brought down'. Closer to the truth was that, for a time, I had become an easy target.”

    But what of the Hilton bombing itself? There should be an inquiry. I agree with Tim that it should have specific terms of reference. It shouldn't be an opportunity for the likes of Seary, Pederick, Denning and Tees to rehash or refit their accusations.

    It should have as a starting point the evidence and research of former police officer Terry Griffiths, who was seriously injured in the bombing. He believes that it was a security force publicity stunt which went wrong. Neither the type of explosive nor the nature of the explosive device were ever determined, as the forensic evidence went missing. Who could have been responsible for that and got away with it?

    Green Left Weekly 1992



    Community Access Television-Tim Anderson Forum 18‑1‑91



    Togs: Another forum tonight, Tim Anderson. The second frame up by the New South Wales Police Force. Tim was convicted on three counts of murder on October 25 1990 last year. This has created one hell of a struggle for civil liberties in this country. We've seen public meetings and meetings as far away as Alice Springs, in Melbourne let alone in New South Wales. Well, first thing tonight is someone who has just come back into Sydney who has been a friend of Tim in the Anti‑Apartheid struggles and that is Noel Hest. G'day Noel.



    Noel Hest: Hi.



    Togs: How did you first here about the news about Tim.



    Noel Hest: I was living in France for a while and read about it in the New Zealand newspapers and I was really horrified and angry about it. Tim having to go through this nightmare a second time.



    Togs: You saw Tim in prison yesterday.



    Noel Hest: Yeah, I saw him yesterday. Seeing him in prison isn't much fun. He's in good sprite. He's feeling really positive and involving himself with his studies. It is hard to see him in prison sure.



    Togs: Well, a few people have been out to see him in prison. It is strange that someone is locked up for fighting against corruption in this state. He's quite strong in regard to fighting for civil liberties and you know him from being involved in the Anti‑Apartheid movement.



    Noel Hest: All the time I've known Tim I've been really impressed in the way he has thrown himself into these struggles. When I first came here in 1985 he had just been released from prison. He just done his seven years. He'd been subjected to all the humiliation and the violence of the prison system. He'd been framed but as soon as he got out he got straight back into political work. He got involved with Anti‑Apartheid, Anti‑Racism work. He fought against the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. He fought for prisoners rights and I always found that an incredibly impressive thing you know. It showed that he is a man with a lot of integrity in my mind.



    Togs: Thanks Noel. Well, if people want to cast their minds back. The year is 1978 in the peaceful seaside town of Sydney and on February 14 in the early hours a bomb went off that shook this country. And we are going to go back to that time now. This is from David Bradbury’s' Frame Up Two.



    Tony Barry: On the 8th of May 1989. Tim Anderson was arrested and charged over the 1978 Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing. In 1985 he and two friends had been pardoned and released from jail. Although they were not actually charged with the Hilton bombing, they spent seven years locked up because of a New South Wales Special Branch frame up designed to blame them for that bombing. In 1989 the Hilton bomb accusations returned but the police story had changed radically. The bomb that exploded outside the Hilton Hotel on 13th of February 1978 killed two council workers and a policeman, others were seriously injured. At the time a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting was taking place at the hotel. Several groups including Amanda Marga, of which Tim was then a member had organised demonstrations against some of the visiting heads of state. All of these groups were targeted for surveillance by the New South Wales Special Branch. No one claimed responsibility for the bombing and after months of investigation there were no real leads. Most of us are raised with concepts of truth and justice. After the first frame up of Tim Anderson and his friends’ one would have thought that lessons would have been learnt but after the surprise arrest of Brisbane man Evan Pedderick the day after Tim was charged. It was widely reported as an open and shut case.



    Media Report: .... that Pederick had been indoctrinated by the Amanda Marga sect. That he had given himself up to police and that he was willing to give evidence against alleged accomplice Tim Anderson. Pedric’s' defence portrayed Anderson as a cunning and charismatic figure with extraordinary powers of persuasion.



    Togs: That was Tony Barry narrating for David Bradbury’s' video Frame-Up Take Two it has showings all around Australia. There are a few books that have been written, one in particular is Tom Molomby's book. Needless to say there has been quite a few articles written about the whole Hilton bombing. As regards to matters journalistic, some of the media coverage that has been dished out during Tim Anderson’s trial has been something of the level of the gutter. Nothing has come anywhere close to what Tom Molomby has written. Also other books which have been written have been by Tim himself. This book that Tim has written, Inside Outlaws is the only book written about New South Wales jails. It's here where Tim talks about the corruption in police force and prison services.



    Your watching CAT TV we are going to play some more of David Bradbury's Frame Up Two.



    Tony Barry: In March 1988 the Liberal National Party came to power in New South Wales on a platform of tough law and order policies. Under premier Nick Greiner, the police powers were extended. Prison sentences increased and the most over policed section of the community, the Aboriginal people were under severe and constant attack.



    Tim Anderson: The Greiner government came to power in 1988 and made a number of changes in relations to prisons and police. They were both areas I was interested in. Being about to publish my

    book on matters related to prisons and police. My two friends from the major frame up in 1978 had left for Queensland. They hadn't remained politically active in Sydney. In early 1989 it appeared that there was a possibility of police introducing video taped interviews in criminal matters which was a matter of concern to people in Prisoners Action Group and to people who had followed the issue over the years and I began to get involved again.



    In those particular areas, I attended a few seminars in February and March. One in March where I confronted one of the police officers about the 1978 frame up, Detective Dennis Gilligan and accused him of verballing. The fabricating of a confession against Ross Dunn in 1978 in front of an audience of lawyers, police officers and judges. He was extremely angry, extremely upset. That was quite obvious. The following month the SWOS[Special Weapons Operations Squad] in Sydney shot dead a young Aboriginal man in Sydney whose wife was at the college I was teaching. Well, subsequently there was a number of public protest demonstrations at that killing. I was involved in those protests and it turned out that the at the officer who was in charge of the SWOS squad responsible for the killing of David Gundy was Detective John Bourke, he was one of the principles in the 1978 frame-up.



    Media Report: David Gundy was shot when heavily armed police raided his Marrickville flat in the early hours of yesterday morning. Detectives were hunting John Porter wanted over Monday city gun battle when things went wrong Gundy’s brother in law was a sleep in the front room when a SWOS Squad officer burst in.



    Macdonald: He told me he was a police officer and he stated “Move and I'll blow your head off”. Fifteen seconds later after the entry of the door I heard a bang and about two or three police in that room. One of them said, "I was sure it was him. He was about the same size."



    Media Report: Police say Gundy died from shotgun wounds to the chest and arm but after identifying the body Macdonald says his brother in law was shot in the head. In Queensland visiting family Gundys' widow first heard of the shooting on radio. Today flanked by her distraught son she demanded answers.



    Dolly Eates: My man, he was a worker He never did no wrong to anybody. I believe the man who did this. The officer who did this, was an unjustifiable death, should pay.



    Tim Anderson: Shortly after that I gave some evidence to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody about the death of Aboriginal man Peter Campbell in Long Bay jail in 1980. And shortly after that I was arrested in May 1989 by a detective.



    Although I have never had any personal experience with him I heard a lot about him in jail about his methods of operation and it turns out the detective who has quite a close working relationship to the other two that I have mentioned, to Gilligan and Bourke who were involved in 1978 frame up.



    Aarne Tess is a product of the old CIB of the 60s and yes, the centralised squad of detectives who have now been disbanded and categorised by the police commissioner I believe as a hotbed of corruption. Well, Aarne was known to me not personally but by reputation through jail. It seemed that a lot of prisoners who I came in contact with in jail had the same accusations against Aarne Tees. That he was involved in presenting unsigned confessions against them again and again in court in serious matters like armed robbery.



    So I heard quite a bit about Aarne before he came to arrest me in 1989. After he came to arrest me although he subsequently has no real role in the prosecution against me because he's not verballing me. He's not giving any evidence of substance against me but I started to look into his background a little bit and it seems that he is very much a ideologist in the police force, very much a defender of the old CIB and the police force itself. He is a member of the police association. And he has come out very strongly in defence of the police operation that killed David Gundy in an article he wrote in the police association's journal.



    He sits on a committee the now superintendent Dennis Gilligan, the committee that said to be supervising the introduction of the safeguards against police verbal in the video taping of interviews, and he is on record as having said the disbanding of the old CIB was one of the worse things that the police force had ever done. He apparently has fond memories of the good old CIB.



    Togs: You’re watching CAT TV the Tim Anderson Frame Up brought to you live on Community Television exposing those people who like framing up political activists. By the way there are few people who have signed a bail application recently.



    I'll read it out, "l liked to support Mr Andersons' application for bail pending his appeal and I believe Mr Anderson release on bail would represent no threat to the community. That Mr Anderson will abide by bail conditions set by the court and that Mr Anderson may well have his bail application quashed at his appeal. In the circumstance and given that juries do make mistakes on occasions I believe that Mr Anderson would not have to spend further time in prison pending his appeal especially since he has already suffered seven years of false imprisonment on charges for which he was pardoned and compensated. "



    And this is a few of the people who have signed it as well as put a thousand dollars up for Tim’s bail; Paul Whelan the Shadow Attorney General, John Hatton, Member of the Legislative Assembly for the South Coast, Chris Nash Head of the Media Department here at the University of Technology, Sydney, Wendy Bacon, Gary Foley, Dr. Ian Stuart, John Pilger and Joan Coxedege. There is about another forty people, each willing to put a thousand dollars up for Tim Anderson.



    I like now to introduce Ian Fraser, a long-time member of Prisoners Action Group, he was in Long Bay Gaol with Tim during his first frame-up sentence, Ian can you please explain the meeting of sorts between Ray Denning in isolation and Tim Anderson.


     Ian Fraser: You help them out. So I found out where Denning was. I got on the phone and In order to do that I needed someone to keep watch for me on the cell door so a screw wouldn't catch me. The unfortunate choice was Tim Anderson and later on Ross Dunne came along during the conversation and he was also a witness and Denning's evidence was that during that first conversation and two subsequent conversations that Anderson confessed not once but three times and Anderson confessed to no one.



    Togs: Well, just on that Ian, can you what the phone is in Long Bay?



    Ian Fraser: The phone within the prison system is the toilet system. The toilets in a wing are all serviced by downpipes and at the bottom of the wing they have cross-pipes and by pushing the water out of the toilet system and tapping on the metal, to notify somebody in another cell, they also push the water out and you can speak freely. There is a limitation in terms of distance that you can speak. You can have some sort of conversation and the call I had with Ray Denning that day that I introduced him to Anderson was merely a social call to ask Denning if he wanted any mail out. Any messages to go out. Do you want any books or tobacco or whatever. It was a social welfare call on my behalf to him.



    Togs: We have Rob Brook here and we are going to talk about Evan Pederick:



    Rob Brook: Well, the day that Tim was charged Evan Pederick, a public servant working in Brisbane, came forward and said he was involved in the bombing. The initial interesting thing about Pederick was that to two groups of professionals that he wasn't believable. His story didn't make sense. And that was the priest he went to see initially Father Brown. Father Brown made a statement to the police later that he didn't believe Evan Pederick was the Hilton Bomber and he was just an openly guilty person for some reason and nonetheless he contacted the Queensland Police because Pederick insisted on that. When the police interviewed Pederick they asked him two hundred and seventy questions in a three and a half hour period and after that they actually drove him home. Quite clearly they didn't believe him and Evan Pederick is tape recorded the next day. This time by the New South Wales Police, Aarne Tees decided to come up probably because their case was so bad all they had was an alleged confession over a toilet eleven years ago from a crim who was obviously desperate to get out of prison. Instead of asking two hundred and seventy questions in three and a half hours what we find is the NSW Police asking one hundred and ten questions in seven and a half hours and on the basis of that they decided to charge him.



    Togs: The connecting piece between Denning and Pederick happens to be one Aarne Tees.



    Rob Brook: Well, that's right Aarne Tees was the one who originally went out and took the statement from Ray Denning and was also involved in following that up. He has been the key investigator. One thing that needs to be recognised by people in the community is that Aarne Tees is one of the old CIB. He worked closely with Roger Rogerson in the Armed Hold Up Squad for eleven years. He comes from a line of corrupt police officers some of whom have now moved up in the police force and hold positions of power. That includes Bourke who is now head of SWOS and was head of SWOS when they killed David Gundy. Again, Tim Anderson was out on the streets for that and this is just a couple of months before his arrest. Gilligan is now a superintendent of police and had a very public altercation with Tim just a month and a half before his arrest so it is important to understand the context in which Tim was arrested and the police and where they came from.



    Ian Fraser: I was present at that altercation, in fact, Tim did not identify or point at anybody during that meeting. It was an international seminar to reform the criminal law and Tim merely got to his feet and said that there was a verbaler in the audience who verballed a friend of his and he was talking about one of his co‑accused and with that Superintendent Dennis Martin Gillighan bounced to his feet and said it was a load of Amanda Marga lies, et cetera. I mean he sort of gave himself up. We were highly amused by it all but the ramifications of it in the long term meant they decided to put Tim out of the way. He became too embarrassing.



    Togs: I'll open the forum up for questions and contributions.



    Brett Collins: It is clear that a lot of people trust Tim. He is very credible. He is a person who is trusted so much by his students he studies with. Eleven thousand students voted him one of their two representatives and that is of course after he spent seven years in jail. So, there is a person with great credibility with support of major sectors of the community, once more, in jail. In jail on such ridiculous evidence and the same structures used against other people with less credibility are used against Tim. It is a great privilege to have someone like Tim inside and fighting hard and to have the battle we are going to win eventually.



    Togs: Do you think more people have become more involved in prison politics through what has happened to Tim?



    Brett Collins: No doubt about it at all. It is a shot in the arm, to use an unfortunate expression. People in jail see Tim as someone to spotlight to their own plight. Under the Griener regime things are getting worse and worse inside the jails. So with Tim there it is something he will be looking at carefully.



    Togs: Well, I guess one other thing is Brett, you have just been up to new jail they have built up at Lithgow.



    Brett Collins: Well, yes, Lithgow is something new once again. One would have expected by now with all inquiries that occurred not just in New South Wales but throughout Australia that we would be looking at prison as an expensive way of using public money, especially when things are tight and with more jails being built at the moment and the imprisonment rate is increasing enormously and for quite clearly the wrong purposes they are counter productive activities. The fact that the Greiner government has used imprisonment so blatantly for political purposes is amazing and that Tim being in jail and all these sorts of things are happening at one time.



    Damien Cohen: One part we haven't touched on is, a part I'd like to address, the role of the media in Tim's conviction. Togs you talked about that previously. With the early conviction how there was a smear campaign. So, in all the hype about needing to find a culprit for this apparent terrorist activity, in 1978, Amanda Marga were a soft target at the l time. Tim, he had spent seven years in jail. So with the current trial, he has been charged with the Hilton it was quite easy for the media to run with the idea.



    Togs: That's all we have time for tonight. You have been watching the Tim Anderson forum here on Community Access Television. Good Night.



    Hilton bombing frame-up collapses at last

    By John Tognolini

    Tim Anderson left the dock in the crowded Court of Criminal Appeal to cheers of jubilation on June 6, after Chief Justice Gleeson acquitted of charges relating to the 1978 Hilton Hotel bombing.

    In its unanimous decision, the court said that evidence allegedly implicating Anderson not been properly investigated. This failure had been compounded by inappropriate and unfair action by the crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, QC.

    Without these prosecution actions and omissions, Gleeson's 78-page ruling concluded, there was a “strong likelihood” that Anderson would have been acquitted. But the prosecution had misled the jurors by persuading them to “draw inferences of fact ... that were in some respects contrary to the evidence”.

    The appeals court could have ordered a new trial. Considering the record, however, Justice Gleeson said he did not consider that “the Crown should be given a further opportunity to patch up its case ... It has already made one attempt too many to do that ...”

    Thus the second frame-up against Tim Anderson by the New South Wales police, like the first, ended in tatters. “Tim 2, NSW Cops 0” were the only words on one congratulatory fax that was sent to the office of the Campaign Exposing the Frame-up of Tim Anderson (CEFTA) following the acquittal.

    CEFTA spokesperson Jane Mussett said, “We are elated that Tim Anderson has at last been acquitted. The judgment is a vindication of all our efforts, but there are many serious questions still to be answered about the handling of this case by the police and the prosecution. The case should never have occurred if the police and prosecution had done their jobs properly ... The spotlight is firmly on them and they should now be in the dock.”

    The police investigation, led by Detective Aarne Tees, had started on the word of notorious prison informer Ray Denning, who claimed that Tim Anderson had confessed to the bombing on at least four occasions. It was proved from prison documents that on at least one of those occasions Denning and Anderson were not even in the same jail, which meant that everything Denning said should have been taken with a bag of salt. During the trial, however, the prosecution did its best to cover up the part of his statement that was actually proved to be false and even suggested during the appeal that the prison records could have been wrong!

    Knowing that Anderson could not be convicted on the word of Denning alone, the police needed something else, and that emerged in the form of Evan Pederick. Pederick came forward after learning of Anderson's arrest and confessed to bombing the Hilton on Anderson's instructions. Both the priest and the Queensland police to whom he initially confessed did not believe his story, and the Queensland police even drove him home. For the NSW police, however, Pederick was just what they needed.

    Pederick then wound together a story, aided by the police and roved on almost every occasion to be incorrect or so bizarre as to be unbelievable. This did not stop the prosecution changing his story to fit the facts.

    One of the main instances of this was the attempt to get the story right over the time, place and even person that Pederick was meant to have been assassinating. When it was proved that the Indian prime minister, Morarji Desai, could not have arrived at the time Pederick claimed he did, the prosecution claimed that he had mistaken the Sri Lankan president, Junius Jayawardene, for Desai. When that proposition was disproved, the prosecution said that Pederick must have seen Desai leaving, not arriving.

    One day after his release, Tim Anderson produced evidence on ABC's PM showing that crown prosecutor Tedeschi withheld information which might have influenced the jury's decision had it been known. A Department of Public Prosecutions memo, dated July 10, 1989, recorded Pederick's solicitor asking for full indemnity before his client would give evidence against Anderson. Anderson said that there were at least two counts of perjury against Denning and Pederick that he believed should be followed up, and he was going to suggest that to the DPP.

    Anderson said that “Denning's was a pathetic case. I resent, though, that he is being rewarded for his perjury against me. As for Pederick, I have no sympathy with the man any more. I did at first, but when I started to hear the lies he was coming out with about me, I lost all sympathy for him. I believe he should be accountable for those lies also.”

    Anderson's experience of the New South Wales justice system goes back to 1978 when he, Ross Dunn and Paul Alister were charged with conspiring to murder a fascist leader, Robert Cameron. This charge was laid on the word of police informer Richard Seary.

    After seven years in prison, the trio were pardoned after an inquiry thoroughly discredited Seary's evidence. Nearly two years later they were compensated $100,000 each by the state government, yet the detectives who concocted the case are still in receipt of bravery awards from 1978.

    Tim Anderson believes that there is a lot of malice in the minds of the police, who have been promoted since 1978, and who are now in a position where they are able to make strategic decisions in relation to major prosecutions.

    The judgment clearing Anderson is a victory for civil liberties. The campaign in his defence brought together people from all different backgrounds and opinions. It was able to stand up against a large part of the media, which had supported the crown case since it was laid on May 30, 1989.

    CEFTA's Jane Mussett said “If it were not for the dedication and persistence brought to the case by Lawyers Angela Avouris, Tom Molomby, John Nicholson, Peter Hidden and Ian Barker, and the readiness of many people to publicly support our campaign, an innocent man would still be behind bars.

    “Tim Anderson was lucky -- many people were prepared to publicly is innocence and to campaign for his release.

    “His case is a damning criticism of the justice system. The acquittal has been a cause for celebration; it shouldn't become a cause for complacency.”

    One can only guess at how many other people are in jail, the victims of frame-ups, whose innocence will never be acknowledged.

    Investigation of the conduct of police and prosecution must be carried out, and anyone responsible for perverting the course of justice should be held accountable for their actions. If this was done, miscarriages of justice would be far rarer.

    CEFTA is calling for:

    1) An independent review of the process of investigation and the evidence produced by it, before prosecutions are launched. This is clearly not happening now, despite the supposed independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

    2) Compensation for Tim Anderson. Abuses of the criminal justice system would be far rarer if governments were obliged to compensate people such as Tim Anderson, Harry Blackburn and Lindy Chamberlain.

    3) Investigation of prison informers and their relationship with police and prison officers, and restriction of their use.

    4) Elimination of verbals, whether from police or prisoners.

    Tim Anderson has been finally cleared in connection with the Hilton bombing, despite his name being linked with it by the media for nearly 13 years.

    At a time of growing attacks on civil liberties, as seen recently in the frame-ups of Arthur Murray and Sonny Bates in the

    Brewarrina “riot” case and the continuing trial of Canberra anti-apartheid activist Kerry Browning, the Tim Anderson victory is a much needed boost for everyone who has been standing up for civil liberties.

    It brings into question the whole system of justice throughout Australia: from police lying and fabricating evidence with prison informers, to the factory line of the criminal courts to the New South Wales overcrowded prison system.
    Green Left Weekly June 6 1991

     

    An interview with Tim Anderson by John Tognolini on Sydney Radio Station Radio Skid Row's Radio Solidarity Show 


    Not long after his June 6 acquittal by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal of all charges related to the Hilton bombing of 1978, TIM ANDERSON spoke to JOHN TOGNOLINI about the case, conditions in prison and what is still wrong with the police and court system.

    Togs: What were your feelings last year when the jury convicted you and Judge Grove sentenced you to prison?

    Tim: It was a real shock. I'd been preparing myself for the worst -- as I was eight months later in the appeals court. We thought the trial had gone very well, and as time went on and the jury didn't make a decision after five-six hours, I started to fear a hung jury.

    For days after that I was very depressed, because the defence thought the case had won. It was hard to imagine how we could lose. I'm sure that the judge and the prosecution thought I was going to be acquitted, and yet still the jury comes down against you. You really don't know how a jury thinks.

    Togs: The fact of your name being linked to the Hilton bombing for 13 years by the media raises the question of trial by media.

    Tim: I put it down to two things. Prejudice is a very big factor: the danger that people came into the jury having made up their minds before they heard any evidence; that would have been a danger in a retrial as well. And also the fact that was underlined by the court of appeal: that the prosecution presented the case unfairly. Putting it bluntly, they lied to the jury about what the evidence was.

    We put to the court as grounds for appeal 53 instances, and documented them all, where the prosecutor said to the jury things were not the evidence or were not based on the evidence; that was very difficult to deal with.

    Togs: The basis for the police laying the charges was the word of prison informer Ray Denning?

    A very big unanswered question is, Why did the police arrest me on Denning's evidence? The court of appeal thought this was quite remarkable.

    The magistrate at the committal said it wouldn't have gone to trial on Denning's evidence. This raises the question, Did they have a prior connection with Evan Pederick? The whole issue of how they came to arrest me is very interesting. I'm thinking of referring the question of my arrest to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which seems to be the only vehicle to do this.

    Togs: Did police have other prison informers to be used against you?

    Tim: There is a great use of police informers at the moment. In my case, apart from Denning, there were another half dozen queued up to give evidence against me. I've got all their statements against me, and they were not used. Documents from the prosecution show that they were thinking of using those ones after I was arrested and dumping Denning. The prosecutor had some doubts about Denning; subsequently he lost all those doubts when he presented him to the jury.

    Togs: Why is there such an increase in the use of prison informers?

    Tim: One of the reasons cited, probably correctly, is that police verbals have been under attack.

    But it's not true to take the next step and say that police verbals are not happening. Verbals are still being used, and I've seen a number of cases recently where they've been used by some old well-known characters just to round off the evidence for the conviction. The only difference is that there was a High Court decision two months ago which requires judges now to give a warning to a jury that they should look for corroboration of unsubstantiated evidence and allegations of confessions by police.

    Togs: Don't you think it's ironic that Denning is being released in November for his work with the police and prosecution in fitting you with the Hilton?

    Tim: Well, he's still got another charge against him, remember: my charge against him for attempting to pervert the course of justice comes up later this month. There has to be a question of bail there because there may be some fears that he's going to assume a false identity and leave the country, which the police have arranged for him.

    Togs: There was also withholding of evidence by the prosecution.

    Tim: It's a real echo of the previous frame-up in 1978 to 1985. The judicial inquiry into our convictions there was a result of the ts by Special Branch. Exactly the same thing happened again, except on this occasion it's the prosecution that withheld the evidence -- interviews with the main witness.

    There are about 10 major inconsistencies with the evidence of Evan Pederick that arise out of their interviews with him. If my appeal had failed, we would have had grounds for an inquiry based on the withholding of this information.

    The frame-up of 1978: there are police officers still holding bravery awards from that, who are now in senior positions in the police force.

    In jail I took the opportunity to make freedom of information applications for the advice that led to those awards, and I've now got all those documents. I've started the process to have those awards withdrawn.

    They are in very senior positions; Bourke is in charge of the Tactical Response Group.

    He's also in charge of the Special Weapons Squad. Dennis Gilligan is in charge, amongst other things, of the committee to oversee the controls on police verbals and the introduction of video taping interviews. Roger Rogerson is out of the force, of course, and there are a couple of others who have bravery awards, but those are the main three.

    Togs: Doesn't it seem a bit strange that such characters have positions of power in one of the largest police forces in the world and also that, to the 75% of the police who are under 25, they are referred to as role models?

    Tim: The old CIB was disbanded because it was called by then police commissioner Avery “a hotbed of corruption”. A lot of those people have been kicked out of the force, but a number of the ones who stayed in there and kept their heads down have got promoted in the course of time. Apart from the ones we've mentioned, there are a few others who have some pretty heavy reputations now in disturbingly senior positions in the force.

    Togs: How did Corrective Services react to you on the inside?

    Tim: I wasn't having any special problems with prison officers, but with the hierarchy of Corrective Services, who pretty soon got a whiff that I was a troublemaker and an embarrassment to them. They started to shuffle me around; eventually they started to deny me access to certain things such as word processing facilities and the education section because they were worried I'd use the equipment to write letters to the ombudsman about the conditions in jail and so on. I was being bricked out of doing basic things like my studies and not allowed to have books.

    Togs: Do you think that's a normal procedure: Tim Anderson, known troublemaker, to be treated as any other troublemaker?

    Tim: They have lists. I've seen one from two years ago. It's got the critical 10 and the crucial 20, like the most wanted within the lot. They have in some cases completely unfounded allegations against people like drugs, violence, organised crime. I don't know what they've got against me.

    Togs: You said on your release that animals in Taronga Park Zoo were better treated than people in prison in New South Wales?

    Tim: In the last jail I was in, the assessment prison at Long Bay, they've got a yard 140 metres long with 100 people in it for seven hours a day. There are no standards you can enforce against the Corrective Services Department that ensure they give a certain amount of space and privacy to prisoners. I'm sure that sort of situation and conditions of overcrowding wouldn't be tolerated at Taronga Park Zoo.

    At the assessment prison, which is built for 210 people, you have over 300 people. In the reception prison, also at Long Bay, there are 550 to 600 people, and that was built for about 300. Just about everyone is two people to a cell and in some cases three to a cell.

    It's still against prison regulations to have two to a cell. There are a lot of problems with two to a cell: you're trying to do a course or study in a bathroom/toilet with someone else locked in with you for 18 hours a day; it's almost impossible.

    Togs: You've said that the bachelor of arts you did during your first seven years in jail would be impossible to do now.

    Tim: It's much harder to do something like that now than it would have been 10 years ago. [Former prisons minister Michael] Yabsley's policy of property: you can't have a typewriter in your cell, you can't have more than two books until you've got proper authorisation, and in the jail I was in, you had to be six weeks before you got that authorisation. If you moved from one jail to another, your education material would be taken away from you for six weeks.

    There are a lot of petty bureaucratic barriers that were put up by the Yabsley regime and the overcrowding, which is all pervasive. There's very little resources put into education now.

    Togs: What's happening with the two units that have been formed in Corrective Services, the intelligence gathering unit and the new paramilitary riot control squad?

    Tim: They've always had emergency squads, special response squads -- there are a few different names they've gone by, but they've always had them. It seems to me that they've become elite squads separated from the general prison officer. There is now very heavy antagonism between the internal investigation unit and the emergency unit and your general prison officers.

    They appear to be more violent than they were six or seven years ago. There's a lot of violence. There's a Turkish man called Oskan who was very badly bashed two weeks ago in the jail I was in. The whole wing saw him being choked and dragged out of the wing. Five witnesses saw him being dragged by handcuffs across an asphalt square yelling out “Let me walk! Let me walk!” He was then he was taken out, and I saw his injuries after that. He had bruises the size of plates over his back and buttocks. Everyone in the jail knows about it. Nothing was done about it. It's like a return to the days of Grafton in the mid-'70s.

    One of the problems is that prisoners don't have anything to do with middle-class existence. People, unless they have a friend or relative in jail, don't know or care much about it.

    There's a huge amount of ignorance about prisons. One of the things I'm trying to do is to point out the conditions in the jails and also how that impacts back on society. It's not a situation where you can lock people up and forget about them. 

    People who have been in jail come back to inflict the brutality and dehumanisation that was inflicted on them.

    Radio Skid Row interview, printed in Green Left Weekly